I believe that feminism is a broad church (I have occasionally joked it is a broad’s church) and that almost any political, religious or world view is compatible with feminism, except a belief in restricting reproductive rights for women. That, to me, given that it hands agency over a woman’s body to others, is a bridge too far. It’s the equivalent of saying you are a Christian but don’t believe in God.
But, apart from that proviso, in the spirit of the more the merrier, I will cheerfully accept anyone who claims to be a feminist as a feminist.
So I was delighted to read that Margie Abbott has publicly declared her husband to be a feminist. A result, she says, of raising three daughters and being surrounded by strong women. All of whom have dutifully trotted around in his wake in the last few days touting his previously well-hidden feminist credentials.
To give him his due, I was impressed to hear from Margie that he recently raised $140,000 for the Manly Women’s Shelter by cycling some absurd number of kilometres. (Can’t help wondering if anyone has thought hard about the name “Manly Women’s Shelter”. It is hilarious.)
I do not intend to debate here whether Margie Abbott’s worse half — he called her his better half, after all — actually is a feminist or not. To me, that’s not what’s important. What has rocked the world on its axis, as far as this old feminism-watcher is concerned, is the claim should be made at all about an avowedly right-wing prime ministerial hopeful and, moreover, claimed proudly. Quite frankly, that’s bloody revolutionary.
Only 10 years ago members of the last Liberal government, including PM John Howard, claimed feminism was done and that we were in a post-feminist era. (The first time the word post-feminism was used, I believe, was in 1911. Women are always being told that feminism is past its use-by date.) Feminism was the movement that dare not speak its name. Women’s conferences died in the bum in the ’90s — I know, because I make a considerable part of my income speaking at them and the work dried up — and hardly any women were prepared to identify publicly as feminists, let alone men. Departments for women, ministers for women were shut down or absorbed into other portfolios. Women were equal, damn it, and anything they did or didn’t get was their own fault.
How the world has changed. Politically, it began with the election of the Rudd government, but it really ramped up when Julia Gillard became our first female PM. After the initial euphoria, however, it started to look rather depressing. Expectations were so high that Gillard could do little but fall short of them. There was also the whiff of illegitimacy about her government given her failure to secure a parliamentary majority in her own right and the deals she was therefore forced to do (Abbott would have done them too, given the opportunity).
For a good two years, we saw a level of political invective and scorn that — while Australian political debate has always been robust — seemed somehow more personal than before. For the first time, largely because it was the first time we’d had a woman leading the country, many of the most vitriolic comments were focused on Gillard’s gender. Jockeying for power is always about amplifying perceived weak spots and being a woman was quickly seen by her opponents as a weakness to be exploited; just as it commonly is in business. And for a while, it looked as if her critics had found a seam of gold.
Hubris, however, is always risky and the tactic of unremitting and nasty pressure on Gillard started to get out of hand. For every legitimate scandal — Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, etc — there was an equal amount of plain misogyny. Women, in particular, began to feel uncomfortable with the level of abuse that seemed to be based around our Prime Minister not being a man. She may not have been any great shakes as PM, but the “worst Prime Minister we’ve ever had”? That always sounded shrill and hysterical, particularly to female ears.
The extreme fearmongering around the carbon tax also — eventually — played into Gillard’s hands. That strategy must originally have been predicated on the Gillard government falling long before the tax was implemented, but the gamble did not pay off. The sky having failed to fall in as predicted, the Liberals and the doom-laden anti-carbon taxers now not only look a bit silly, but all their other fearmongering, including dog whistling to anti-women prejudices, has been called into question.
As a result, the tables have turned a little more in Gillard’s favour. She’d still lose an election held today, but no longer would it be a wipe-out. The very fact that the Abbott females have been wheeled out proves she’s got her opponents rattled.
But there is something else that may be the most powerful and uncontrollable element in the revolution we are seeing in the growth of women’s political power and influence. After all, this isn’t just an Australian phenomenon. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also has a problem with women voters (again, probably due to his views about reproductive rights) and has also wheeled out his wife to try to woo them.
Social media is giving all sorts of people access to the public square in a way that they have never had before, but women — just because of their numbers — are benefiting disproportionately. Men are still overwhelmingly the gatekeepers of traditional media, bricks and mortar business and the powerful end of town, but the conversation is rapidly moving elsewhere. Women have flocked to the internet and they are making their presence felt. They no longer have to seek male approval to get the job, the article published, their face on the telly or their voices heard. They just need to attract readers, customers, purchasers, friends, followers and views. And they are.
If feminism is about women’s equality of opportunity and right to participate in every aspect of life, and I think that it is, then it is not surprising that as women have found a vehicle which gives them equal access to the public space, feminism has correspondingly risen from what some may have fondly hoped was the dead.
If Tony Abbott needs to be seen as a feminist before he can have a shot at being our next prime minister, then we’re winning.
54 thoughts on “Jane Caro: why Margie Abbott is bloody revolutionary”
Venise Alstergren
October 12, 2012 at 9:31 pmLIZ: This is very funny re Andrew Bolt and his blog. One night I was working late and suddenly the house shook. I sent out a tweet wondering if anyone else had noticed a bit of movement? Of all people, Andrew Bolt was the person who tweeted back to me confirming that he’d felt it too.
Tactfully, as tactful as I can be, ie not very, I let it be known what I thought of him. ‘Night, V.
Liz45
October 14, 2012 at 12:37 pm@Loot on Ctable – Did you march against the illegal war in Iraq? Do you protest to Howard for starting the damn wars in the first place? I marched against the war in Iraq, I wrote to Howard (and received a waffle in reply – the usual?). I don’t think we should be in Afghanistan in the first place. Not one Afghani was responsible for 9/11! Shameful! Now all we’re doing is piling more dead bodies on top of those already dead! Shameful indeed!
The nonsense about JG and no policy, or the bs of the Opposition that Labor is just dodging discussion on other issues is a bit rich. For over two years we’ve had Abbott focusing/obsessing/boring us with his nonsense about the price on carbon. No policies; no questions in Parlt about all most anything else. You’d think by his behaviour that nothing else is of any import? NOW, they accuse Labor of avoiding other issues? Give me a break!
Do you ever watch Question Time? Anthony Albanese often comments on the lack of questions on education, foreign policy, aged care, health in general etc from the Opposition. Watch it next time and observe very closely!
The lack of basic courtesy to women politicians or others in high profile positions was evidenced on Q&A last Monday. Lindsay Tanner and Christopher Pyne started their own conversation on Downton Abbey while Kate Ellis was answering a question from the audience! So damned rude. Near the end of the hour the three male visitors did a similar thing – each one adding suggestions? to her answer! It was so marked, and showed such disrespect?
The fact is that the atmosphere in federal parlt changes when a woman stands up to speak at the Dispatch Box? If Abbott only does half of what the PM accused him of, it proves his rudeness. Telling her to ‘shut up’, using ‘cat calls’ etc. Some Leader????NOT!
I’d hazard a guess that Kate Ellis has plenty of practice dealing with rude men who behave in this sexist manner. Christopher Pyne’s objectivity even found him praising Lindsay Tanner at least twice? Interesting to observe the contrast? He is just plain rude!
@Venise – The image of you and Bolt having your ‘earth moving’ moment is not a pretty one! (sorry-couldn’t resist!)
Loot On CTable
October 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm@V
hehehe, you are too perceptive for your own good. The “movie” is slowly squeezing itself out of me. Lets hope it’s better than my “poetry”..hehe.
Loot On CTable
October 22, 2012 at 2:14 pmOooop! another clanger. that should have been from Broad Brush.